[onli]

> but instead it make you more happy to learn what makes the great new games great in their own regard. They won't be great in the same way Fallout 1 was great.

I think Fallout is a perfect example. When you look at Fallout 3 one can easily have that impression, that the good things from Fallout 1 and 2 are lost in modern games. But if you then go on and play Fallout: New Vegas, you see that even a modern game can still have everything good from back then, right now.

I think it's not about the time, it's about choice, about which games you play. For every call of duty there is a Deus Ex, Alpha Protocol, Spec Ops: The Line, a World of Goo or a Minecraft.

Apart from the subjectivity caused by nostalgia I think it is impossible to look at our times and the awesome games created today and to think there are no good ones. Games like Oblivion - which he cites as a negative example - are exactly the old sandboxes in which the player can act somewhat freely. And with auto-leveling of the enemies disabled via mod it was even not a bad game. But sure, the good games are not always the most successful ones, and there is crap on the market. But that is not new as well.

[ijk]

I'll go one further: Wasteland 2, obliquely referenced in the the article as a Kickstarter project, just came out. I haven't finished it yet, so I'm a bit close to it, but so far my personal opinion is that it's _better than Fallout 1_. Just one opinion, but I think it serves as a counter argument to the idea that none of these projects are worthwhile.